Still no sponsor for Quigley?

LMW9 wrote:

VIP in the peanut gallery wrote:

How much does a model get paid for a print advertising photo shoot? For a television ad? If a few of those are built into the contract, $250,000 doesn't seem outrageous for a recognizable athlete.

Not sure what the going rates are for models. Thanks to Covid, companies are taking a hard look at just how much money they'll invest. Quigley is almost 30 who has battled injuries and has no international medals. No ARs or WRs. It's a damn shame she got that ridiculous DQ at 2017 Worlds and then couldn't compete due to injury at Doha.

Nike needs their athletes to perform so that the brand looks good. Given that they didn't pay up, I'd say they value performance over anything else.

That takes me back to Gwen lol I would love to know if she’s on a kit-only contract or a monetary contract for Nike. I wish there was more transparency around contacts... I’m sure we would be in a perpetual state of shock if there was

LMW9 wrote:

heard through the grapevine. wrote:

They offered her $150,000 and she wanted $250,000.

*obligatory source question*

If true, that number seems unreasonable, no?

From a credible source, and this is one thing you will read on Letsrun that’s actually true.

emr0129 wrote:

LMW9 wrote:

[quote]VIP in the peanut gallery wrote:

How much does a model get paid for a print advertising photo shoot? For a television ad? If a few of those are built into the contract, $250,000 doesn't seem outrageous for a recognizable athlete.

Not sure what the going rates are for models. Thanks to Covid, companies are taking a hard look at just how much money they'll invest. Quigley is almost 30 who has battled injuries and has no international medals. No ARs or WRs. It's a damn shame she got that ridiculous DQ at 2017 Worlds and then couldn't compete due to injury at Doha.

Nike needs their athletes to perform so that the brand looks good. Given that they didn't pay up, I'd say they value performance over anything else.

That takes me back to Gwen lol I would love to know if she’s on a kit-only contract or a monetary contract for Nike. I wish there was more transparency around contacts... I’m sure we would be in a perpetual state of shock if there was[/quote

Lol I hear ya. Most people on here have said she only gets gear, but who knows? Maybe she gets a small stipend? I wonder if Nike helps her pay for coaching?

I agree the numbers would surprise us all.

LMW9 wrote:

VIP in the peanut gallery wrote:

How much does a model get paid for a print advertising photo shoot? For a television ad? If a few of those are built into the contract, $250,000 doesn't seem outrageous for a recognizable athlete.

Not sure what the going rates are for models. Thanks to Covid, companies are taking a hard look at just how much money they'll invest. Quigley is almost 30 who has battled injuries and has no international medals. No ARs or WRs. It's a damn shame she got that ridiculous DQ at 2017 Worlds and then couldn't compete due to injury at Doha.

Nike needs their athletes to perform so that the brand looks good. Given that they didn't pay up, I'd say they value performance over anything else.

Yes. I've noticed that. At all costs.

But dollar for dollar it's not clear that their athletes perform better than anyone else's.

heard through the grapevine. wrote:

LMW9 wrote:

*obligatory source question*

If true, that number seems unreasonable, no?

From a credible source, and this is one thing you will read on Letsrun that’s actually true.

So noted.

Man, I'd be ecstatic if a company offered me $150,000 to run for a living.

VIP in the peanut gallery wrote:

LMW9 wrote:

Not sure what the going rates are for models. Thanks to Covid, companies are taking a hard look at just how much money they'll invest. Quigley is almost 30 who has battled injuries and has no international medals. No ARs or WRs. It's a damn shame she got that ridiculous DQ at 2017 Worlds and then couldn't compete due to injury at Doha.

Nike needs their athletes to perform so that the brand looks good. Given that they didn't pay up, I'd say they value performance over anything else.

Yes. I've noticed that. At all costs.

But dollar for dollar it's not clear that their athletes perform better than anyone else's.

Nice dig at the dopers. ?

I think Nike athletes do a pretty good job of filling the top spots, no?

TMADDDHASFNE wrote:

Brojos,

Colleen would look pretty good in the LRC singlet. I think she'd would jump the chance to be part of the family where dreams come true. You might have to talk Jonathon Gault into taking a pay cut to get Colleen on the team.

Female Athletic Supporter

F that. Jonathan Gault is the best part of this site.

She should join us...the stock is UP!

LMW9 wrote:

Man, I'd be ecstatic if a company offered me $150,000 to run for a living.

Me too, but that doesn't mean I would keep working for someone who wouldn't give me a raise when other companies would pay me more for the same work.

emr0129 wrote:

I haven’t heard anything about Colleen Quigley’s sponsorship situation. This length of time seems a-typical, especially for someone as good as Colleen. Has anyone heard anything?

"Angels never know it's time to close the book and gracefully decline..."

Reminds me a little bit MAYBE of someone like Meb or Kara or even Nick Symmonds who were given a less than ideal contract from Nike (Nicks offer was 70k) and while they may have gotten lower deals with other companies like Brooks or Skechers, they also signed deal with a watch company, a sock company, a sunglass company, apparel, a nutrition company, etc etc and collectively made a lot more than just with Nike contract.

This is the vibe I get from Colleen as she is hustling a LOT of different things on IG lately. She stands to make more with a lot of other side deals and side brand versus Nike who makes darn near everything.

Demethedream wrote:

Reminds me a little bit MAYBE of someone like Meb or Kara or even Nick Symmonds who were given a less than ideal contract from Nike (Nicks offer was 70k) and while they may have gotten lower deals with other companies like Brooks or Skechers, they also signed deal with a watch company, a sock company, a sunglass company, apparel, a nutrition company, etc etc and collectively made a lot more than just with Nike contract.

This is the vibe I get from Colleen as she is hustling a LOT of different things on IG lately. She stands to make more with a lot of other side deals and side brand versus Nike who makes darn near everything.

Meb, Kara and Nick had a better running resume though.

No disrespect to Colleen, but it's 2021 here and models are a dime a dozen. If Nike needs fitness model they can find one for less than $250k.

emr0129 wrote:

If she’s asking for that much than it is unreasonable. There’s an article from a runner’s agent a few years back who estimated Emma Coburn at $150,000 not including bonuses. Colleen hasn’t proven herself to be where Emma is, but if she’s asking a lot she better be ready to put on a good show at trials and the olympics. I would feel like an idiot if I asked for a lot and then did nothing.

Another way to look at this is that maybe Coburn isn't being paid as much as she could be. I would have guessed that Coburn has more IG followers but she is actually well ahead of Quigley. Maybe NB is getting somewhat of a steal. Nike is a brand that doesn't need ambassadors plus the BTC account functions similarly enough to whatever promotion Quigley can bring up to a certain price point. Nike threw out a number & Quigley feels she is worth more. Nothing wrong with that. She probably is to the right company.

emr0129 wrote:

LMW9 wrote:

*Latter.

It is a shame IMO that T&F doesn’t have more popularity. Look how much football players, etc are paid. Runners beat up their bodies everyday and work just as hard as any other athlete (harder if you’re an NFL kicker who gets paid millions to go out on the field a few times and be clutch when it counts). Nike has the funds to be more generous with athletes, they just know they can get away with what they do now because it’s not a hugely popular sport (outside of the marathon).

NFL players are way way way more elite athletes than distance runners. If a male who is fast at running in the US, they will first try to play football. If not big , strong, or agile enough, they will then default to track/sprinting. If not good at sprinting, they will go to a longer event until they are competitive. Women running is probably more elite for women than men running is for men, but an athletic female would probably default to basketball or soccer before being a part of track/running. I'm fine with the way it is, basketball, soccer, football are all way more entertaining to watch than distance running. That's where I would spend my money as a fan of sports. I'd rather the elite athletes be in those sports. I want tyreek hill to be playing on Monday night football, not running track if the money were equal.

Those are good points - I also don't see Coburn as a hustler where Colleen absolutely is

I've noticed an increasing situation in which the tall and good looking people feel they deserve more than they get. They whine and end up losing, because it turns out they aren't actually worth more just because they are really good looking.

I think Quigley might be part of this. She has gotten whatever she wants in the past, partly on her looks, but now she's hitting a roadblock. So she walked away from Nike, confident that like in the past her looks would help land her in a good place. Because that's been her pattern in life.

This has always been a thing, but I think it's increased with social media making photographs the coin of the realm.

The financial aspects of the sport would be better for athletes if World Athletics and USATF would loosen restrictions on sponsor logos. Allow track athletes to have multiple brands advertised on their singlets like triathletes or cyclists and get rid of the size restrictions. I think that would entice other brands into the sport and break the footwear/apparel manufacturer's grip on the sport.

Using Quigley as an example, she could continue to use Nike gear (on a gear only deal) while wearing Nike kit emblazoned with a main money sponsor like Sephora or Apple or Yoplait or Delta Airlines or Michelob Ultra or...

It used to be like this 40 years ago until IAAF and the shoe companies gradually locked up all sponsorships. You would see guys racing the roads in a Bud Light singlet or with an airline, soft drink, or hotel company printed on their shorts. Consequently, when athletes got restricted it also drove other non-running sponsors from the sport. Back then, you could call up your local beer distributors to pitch a road race and one of them would fund it within a week (permits, traffic control, shirts, live music, etc.) and also provide kegs for the after race beer garden. Nowadays you are forced to do a lame charity tie-in (which jacks up entry costs) and find the most innocuous (and stingy) title sponsors possible.

this is to keep Nike writing the big check every year, right?

If the swoosh had to compete with other logos on uniforms, Nike would pay USATF a lot less.

So this is a way for USATF to keep the cash flowing the the bureaucrats, not the athletes.

If I understand this correctly, which is not guaranteed.

To be fair, i don't even step on the track for anything less than 300k.

Spending 22-35 being a pro distance runner has to be fairly detrimental to any future career, and is probably a huge hinderance on lifetime earnings. Sure, it's nice to follow your dreams. However, it's also nice to not have to start a career at 35.